Kahabut:Car_Ramrod: I understand all the reasons why they're taking his kids away, and he should probably stop having them until he gets his life back together. However, I will say this:

Because of his sex crimes, he was banned from attending high school and instead took correspondence courses, alone at the kitchen table in the group home. He gave up after Grade 9. "You'd think they'd want me interacting with other human beings, learning how to act properly and respect people."

There's got to be a better way to handle these kind of cases. Not completing high school has been shown over and over again to have a huge impact on someone's future. His story was basically written from there.

Yeah, I'm actually kinda curious what he did to deserve being ostracized so thoroughly. Basically, I wonder if I agree or not.

For my money though, if the guy did something so horrible, why is he alive at all? And if it wasn't bad enough to die for, why is it such a big deal that he can't even be around peers? Yes, you asshole, that is exactly how parenting works.

Also... "Essentially, this court is being asked to take a chance and allow (the couple) to use (the girl) as a parental training tool," the judge ruled. "Yes, you asshole, that is exactly how parenting works.

Mikey1969:ImpatientlyUnsympathetic: Mikey1969: ImpatientlyUnsympathetic: I'm not saying its good or right, but when your mother, who hates your husband, takes his side when he divorces you while you're pregnant with another child after an incident with your older child that seems an awful lot like shaken baby? And your mother supports him in his bid to get full custody of that unborn child during the divorce and it works? With the state of our country's family court system and the way they treat fathers? I think its probably much, much different than your daughter having a slip and fall.

Not saying it was wrong, just the "suspected" thing with no actual due process makes me shudder. Shaken babies are no joke, I just see a lot of potential for over-reacting overall in this. Not necessarily in your situation, it's just in general how badly this could possibly go.

Agreed. I would be more uppity and angry about this if it was a father who was denied his rights because of suspicions. Fathers have had a helluva time being treated fairly.

Even in this article, I doubt that the mother is not permitted the option to raise the children without this super star. My cousin was engaged to the mother of his children and they were living together. They had a daughter and another on the way. When she delivered second daughter, she and the newborn baby tested positive for illicit drugs. Custody of the child was not given to my cousin, because he was not intending to leave their shared home with his two children. His mother took custody and my cousin didn't get custody back again for 3 years. But, the key is, he got custody back when he left his fiancée, since she hid the drug habit and then suggested that the child might not be his afterall...

It does seem that the 'father hate' is (very) slowly swinging over in a more father-friendly direction, but it could take forever... They just passed a law in UT(Apparently only state where this was legal) that made it illegal for a mother to fraudul ...

Father Hate and the propaganda of "men are unfit parents" is something that angers me. I was raised in a home with an unfit father, my dad was the type that would have done anything to take my brother and I if my parents split up, including probably kidnapping us. He was a real ugly kind of person, I also do believe that had my mom left, he might have been the type that annihilated the entire family and then killed himself. I know there are really awful fathers, but I have seen mothers that have done anything and everything to alienate and destroy the relationship between their children's father and the kids out of spite and nothing more. And at the end of the day, I just want these women to sit down and explain why, even though they picked them and are not claiming to have been raped and forced to rear these children with a husband they hate, they are now certain that he's a loser jackwagon who should have no rights.

My sister-in-law is refusing to seek court ordered child support for one of my brother's step daughters, because she doesn't want anything from her ex-boyfriend. Stupid cow, he has a right to know where you're hiding his child (the real reason I think she's refusing to get the support... they'd have to know where she is in order to get her the money, and therefore, visitation would be enforced?) Women have lost their way in the last 30 years and it seems like we're trying to run so many things into the ground out of spite.

So here's my question for this dork, and for everyone here who seems to be white-knighting him and his right to not be pre-convicted for crimes he might not yet commit and all that:

Because of his sex crimes, he was banned from attending high school and instead took correspondence courses, alone at the kitchen table in the group home. He gave up after Grade 9. "You'd think they'd want me interacting with other human beings, learning how to act properly and respect people."

That was SEVENTEEN years ago. He's now 29 (12 + 17 = 29). He's had plenty of time to learn how to act properly and respect people and behave like a normal person. He's no longer a child or even a teenager--he's a grown man. Even if his teenage years were bad because the province of Ottawa overreacted about an innocent game of doctor or whatever--that's been a long time. Could it be that it's not that other people can't leave his past behind him, it's that HE can't leave it behind?

On a related note, reproduction combined with child-rearing are, together, a human right.

I very strongly disagree. To employ this phrase without sarcasm or facetiousness for once, won't somebody think of the children? Don't you agree that a kid has a right not to be reared by a drunk father with anger problems and an imbecilic mother in a house with dead dogs?

You have the right to bare arms, but you can lose that by being an asshat.

fusillade762:"I'm still paying for it every day. I can't walk down the street without someone calling me a goof or a pedophile,"

Goof? Does that word mean something different in Canadian?

Yes, it does. I'ts a prison term, and calling somebody a goof is a terrible insult. You are telling them that they are a child molester and will be killed on the range, in the yard, or while they sleep.

/Learned it from my son who has some friends who have served some time.//Never call your streetwise kid a "goof"///ever.

Ahh Lanark county and the ottawa valley... It's the Deep South of Ontario. You know the place where most family trees don't branch. I taught HS out there for a few years. Half the kids were good hard working farm kids... The other half were related :)

jvl:Car_Ramrod: Did... did you read the article? Do you disagree with the judge? Or are you just one of those blanket anti-authoritarians that love using the terms "citizen" and "precrime" like you're in an Orwell book? Dude did not deserve to keep his kid; he obviously can't take care of a child if he and his wife can't take care of themselves.

Let me put this in terms even a maroon could understand...

The right to have children and keep them is a Basic Human Right. It's even more fundamental than Free Speech. You do not fark with rights like these without one hell of a lot of reason to do so.

Something he did at 12 so we take away his children? Fark you. Doesn't take care of his pets so we take away his children? Fark you harder. He is a drunk? Don't make me fark you again! Which part of "Basic Human Right" was not understood? Now, if the Judge is basing his decisions on something not mentioned in the article like what happened with the first baby, then I'm okay with this.

But you do not execute a person for not taking care of his pets. You do not remove the right of Free Speech and Free Association for not taking care of pets. You do not remove the Right to Reproduce for not taking care of pets.

Rights. Sometimes the word Right is abused with all the "it's my Right to do xxx" which is heard over often in society. This is not one of those cases. This is one of the Fundamental Rights.

If children were property and had no basic human rights of their own, you would almost have a point.

Don't you agree that a kid has a right not to be reared by a drunk father with anger problems and an imbecilic mother in a house with dead dogs?

First, there is a presumption that would happen without proof.

The sun has risen every day for millions of years. You want to bet it will stop shining overnight?

Second, since we are talking about basic human rights, I strongly disagree that the consequences of parental neglect should precede the neglect.

Of course you're right. Every kid deserves a chance to be neglected, or worse, by crazy, drunk, stupid parents who can't even get the dead dog out of the living room.

Third, to the best of my knowledge drunk fathers with anger issues do not routinely have their children removed from them unless they actually commit an abuse or permit dead dogs in the house.

More drunk fathers with anger issues should lose their kids, or at least be prevented from having any more. What I don't get is why so many of 'em don't decide themselves not to have kids, thereby sparing themselves the trouble and expense: are they breeding victims or are they just stupid?

You might wish for a different system. (Insert "you know who else" joke here). It is a dangerous and slippery slope to decide who is and is not fit for parenting absent actual wrongdoing.

The old I get the less "democratic" I am. Maybe in a dozen generations of careful breeding, management and education we might get a population that can be trusted to try to live up to a more libertarian ethics, but we should begin by thinning the herd. It's not like H. "sapiens" is an endangered species. And no one culture, civilization or ethnicity is inherently superior to all the others, therefore we should apply the same standards to all. (E.g., that the Koran advises men to beat their wives is not reason enough to not forbid them from doing so.)

SlothB77:i don't know about the pedophilia considering he was just a child himself when he allegedly committed them, but

They once lived in a tent at a trailer park.A child-protection agent reported in 2011 that the state of their home was "deplorable, smelling of urine, feces and other unknown smells and extreme filth."

There was no heat at the home, either.They've had other problems at home too, with authorities in 2010 seizing around 30 animals from their house. They removed gerbils, mice, rats, snakes, dogs (including one that was in such bad health it had to be put down) and cats.Some of the animals found in the house had been dead for a while.

isn't an environment to raise kids in.

THIS. This wasn't about the potential for sexual abuse; it was about the filthy home and potential sexual abuse. The big reason was the filthy home and wino parents.

A whole bunch of you are white knighting him, suggesting his sexual assault victim was his age so he's not really a pedophile, that whatever the sexual assault was it was probably not a big deal, and the list goes on and on.

From the bloody article:

The judge's ruling also referenced a recent sexual behaviour assessment that concluded the father's likelihood of re-offending in a "violent manner is deemed to be in the high-risk range."

He then refused another test.

He didn't just mess around a child when he was 12, he VIOLENTLY sexually abused a child, and is likely to do it again.

But go ahead, let him babysit your children or whatever and give him his chance to prove himself.

FTA: "Essentially, this court is being asked to take a chance and allow (the couple) to use (the girl) as a parental training tool," the judge ruled.

Oh geez, tell me it's not going to be one of those cases where an 18 y/o slept with his perfectly willing and consenting 17 y/o GF but she had butthurt parents....

They've had other problems at home too, with authorities in 2010 seizing around 30 animals from their house. They removed gerbils, mice, rats, snakes, dogs (including one that was in such bad health it had to be put down) and cats.

I think here even the critter lovers and the GET OFF MAH YERD people can agree on this one - if they can't take care of pets, then they obviously aren't fit to raise a child. I was about to suggest licensing for parents, but considering how poorly everything else is run... :/

sodomizer:These people are fail. Darwin says let them keep the baby and hope it doesn't survive.

Darwin "says" nothing of the sort, and you know it. Natural selection is a process where by genes that lead to the organism's successful reproduction are continued. It is not a "code" that demands that babies those whose parents we deem undesirable ought to be killed through neglect or abuse. Even if you hold the false belief that dysfunctional parenting is entirely a hereditary genetic flaw, simply not having children in the first place would be the logical solution for such parents.

foxyshadis:xanadian: Car_Ramrod: There's got to be a better way to handle these kind of cases. Not completing high school has been shown over and over again to have a huge impact on someone's future. His story was basically written from there.

This is pretty much what I'm stuck on. They doomed him from the get-go. Blame Canada, indeed.

Also...what, exactly, DID the guy do at 12? Or dare I ask?

/they listed the charges, but not what he actually DID

Sealed records. It must have been something pretty heinous to be the primary reason though, so I'm imagining raping a preschooler, not pissing on the fence. But I don't know, the prosecution can't say, and he certainly won't tell how bad (or not) it really was.

It's the primary reason chosen by the newspaper, because sex sells. The judge was more concerned about the couple's current, appalling lack of parenting skills.

Car_Ramrod:you don't want there to be no consequences to their actions

Couldn't the consequences include "address whatever the hell fraked him up sufficiently to make him a rapist at age 12"? I'm not saying there should be no punishment, but even if you're against rehabilitation for adults you have to support it for children. If nothing else it's economically inefficient to jail someone for 70 years.

Mikey1969:alberta_beef: Pure guesswork, but based on the way they are treating this, I think that when he was 12, his victims were MUCH younger than him. That would account for the extreme bias.

I see nothing to indicate that they are making any kind of distinction at all on the age of whomever he played doctor with.

Yeah well that's because you don't know it's legal for a 12 year old in Canada to have sex with another 12 year old, or anyone +/- 2 years. They had to have been under 10, they also specify it was violent.

jvl:Car_Ramrod: Did... did you read the article? Do you disagree with the judge? Or are you just one of those blanket anti-authoritarians that love using the terms "citizen" and "precrime" like you're in an Orwell book? Dude did not deserve to keep his kid; he obviously can't take care of a child if he and his wife can't take care of themselves.

Let me put this in terms even a maroon could understand...

The right to have children and keep them is a Basic Human Right. It's even more fundamental than Free Speech. You do not fark with rights like these without one hell of a lot of reason to do so.

Something he did at 12 so we take away his children? Fark you. Doesn't take care of his pets so we take away his children? Fark you harder. He is a drunk? Don't make me fark you again! Which part of "Basic Human Right" was not understood? Now, if the Judge is basing his decisions on something not mentioned in the article like what happened with the first baby, then I'm okay with this.

But you do not execute a person for not taking care of his pets. You do not remove the right of Free Speech and Free Association for not taking care of pets. You do not remove the Right to Reproduce for not taking care of pets.

Rights. Sometimes the word Right is abused with all the "it's my Right to do xxx" which is heard over often in society. This is not one of those cases. This is one of the Fundamental Rights.

idiot. The child has the right to not have these offensive individuals fark it up.

That is fundamental as well and trumps some cracker wanting a realdoll...

They have not removed the right to reproduce but as soon as the wailing brat comes out it has the right not to have dorkus and doofus kill it in six months.

I say again, you are an idiot. I can see why you stick up for your people...